# Silvermont 5.75/3.54 3.56 4.12 3.87(*) 4.11
# Goldmont 3.82/1.26 1.26 1.29 1.29 1.50
# Bulldozer 5.77/0.70 0.72 0.90 0.70 0.95
-# Ryzen 2.71/0.35 0.35 0.44 ? ?
+# Ryzen 2.71/0.35 0.35 0.44 0.38 0.49
#
# (*) Atom Silvermont ECB result is suboptimal because of penalties
# incurred by operations on %xmm8-15. As ECB is not considered
# Goldmont 10.6/+17% 5.10/- 3.28
# Sledgehammer 7.28/+52% -/14.2(ii) -
# Bulldozer 9.66/+28% 9.85/11.1 3.06(iv)
-# Ryzen 5.96 ? 2.40 2.09
+# Ryzen 5.96/+50% 5.19/- 2.40 2.09
# VIA Nano 10.5/+46% 6.72/8.60 6.05
#
# (i) compared to older gcc 3.x one can observe >2x improvement on
# VIA Nano 1.82/+150% -
# Sledgehammer 1.38/+160% -
# Bulldozer 2.30/+130% 0.97
-# Ryzen 1.15/? 1.08 1.18
+# Ryzen 1.15/+200% 1.08 1.18
#
# (*) improvement coefficients relative to clang are more modest and
# are ~50% on most processors, in both cases we are comparing to
# Haswell 5.45 4.15/+31% 3.57/+53%
# Skylake 5.18 4.06/+28% 3.54/+46%
# Bulldozer 9.11 5.95/+53%
-# Ryzen 4.75 ? 1.93/+150%(**)
+# Ryzen 4.75 3.80/+24% 1.93/+150%(**)
# VIA Nano 9.32 7.15/+30%
# Atom 10.3 9.17/+12%
# Silvermont 13.1(*) 9.37/+40%
# Haswell 12.2 9.28(+31%) 7.80(+56%) 7.66 5.40(+42%)
# Skylake 11.4 9.03(+26%) 7.70(+48%) 7.25 5.20(+40%)
# Bulldozer 21.1 13.6(+54%) 13.6(+54%(***)) 13.5 8.58(+57%)
-# Ryzen 11.0 ? 2.05(+440%) 7.05 5.67(+20%)
+# Ryzen 11.0 9.02(+22%) 2.05(+440%) 7.05 5.67(+20%)
# VIA Nano 23.0 16.5(+39%) - 14.7 -
# Atom 23.0 18.9(+22%) - 14.7 -
# Silvermont 27.4 20.6(+33%) - 17.5 -